Traditional clinical journal articles, also called updates, are different from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Updates selectively review the medical literature while a topic is widely discussed. Non-quantitative systematic reviews comprehensively review the medical literature and attempt to identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach for diagnosis or treatment. Meta-analyses (quantitative systematic reviews) attempt to answer a targeted clinical question using rigorous statistical analysis of pooled research studies. This article provides guidelines for writing an evidence-based clinical review article for American Family Physician. First, the topic should be of common interest and relevant to family practice. Attach a table of medical education objectives to the exam. Indicate how the literature review was conducted and include several sources of evidence-based reviews, such as The Cochrane Collaboration, BMJ Clinical Evidence, or the InfoRetriever website. Where possible, use evidence based on clinical outcomes related to morbidity, mortality or quality of life, as well as studies in primary care populations. In articles submitted to American Family Physician, rate the level of evidence for important recommendations using the following scale: Level A (randomized controlled trial [RCT], meta-analysis); Level B (other evidence); Level C (consensus/expert opinion). Finally, provide a table of key summary points.
Before considering how to create a journal article, it makes more sense to examine the motivation behind writing the journal article in question. The fundamental reason for writing a review article is to create a readable synthesis of the best literary sources on a research request or an important topic. This simple definition of a review article contains the following key elements: Several sources of evidence-based reviews on the topic are assessed (Table 1). The purpose of writing a literature review is to provide a critical appraisal of available evidence from existing studies. Review articles can identify potential areas of research to explore next, and sometimes draw new conclusions from existing data. In a systematic review of a targeted question, the survey methods used should be clearly specified. Clinicians reading these studies should integrate them and compare them with existing evidence to conclude whether clinical policy should be modified based on the evidence collected. Even in the original studies, only part of the clinical problem is addressed. Therefore, most clinicians take a shortcut to read the clinical journals of others. These clinical reviews include evidence from available studies on the specific clinical problem. However, it must be recognized that there are few published results obtained with DBS in dystonia and that the conclusions of these preliminary reports must be drawn very carefully. Nevertheless, promising results are emerging from individual case reports or small case series, and the idea that DBS can be of great help in some cases is growing.
In this review, we discuss the results reported in the literature. Some critical points regarding the evaluation of outcomes are also mentioned, often clinical reviews are requested from journals or publishers, but the authors themselves may choose to write a review. In both cases, the topic should be chosen taking into account the interests and specificities of the audience, represent an important aspect of the field of investigation, and focus on a clearly defined topic. Examples include: diagnosis and treatment of Barrett`s esophagus; treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis C; Advances in the treatment of congestive heart failure in the elderly. In this article, we present guidelines for writing an evidence-based clinical review article, particularly for continuing medical education (CME) and integrating CME objectives into its format. This article may be read as a companion article to a previous article and an accompanying editorial on reading and evaluating clinical journal articles.1,2 Some articles may not be suitable for an evidence-based format due to the nature of the topic, the slope of the article, lack of sufficient evidence, or other factors. Authors are encouraged to review the literature and, where possible, assess important lines of evidence. This process will highlight the synthesis points of the article and reinforce its pedagogical value. Be sure to review the goals and scope of the journal you plan to publish in to find out if this is the right place for your journal article.
Look for studies that describe patient populations likely to be seen in primary care rather than subspecialty reference populations. Shaughnessy and Slawson`s guide for clinical review authors includes a section on information and validity pitfalls to avoid.2 Complete this checklist before submitting your review article: This content is the property of AAFP. A person who consults it online can create a print of the material and use this print only for his personal and non-commercial reference. This material may not be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or invented, except with the written permission of the AAFP. See Permissions for copyright questions and/or permission requests. Medical examinations are becoming more and more popular and necessary. The need for review articles stems from the large volume of scientific publications that researchers and clinicians face. „Following literature“ has become an insurmountable task for many.
As the volume of evaluations has increased, so has the importance of evaluation quality and reliability. An honest review article describes its sources of information and selection methods; clarifies the nature and strength of the evidence supporting key statements; and declares provenance, discoveries and conflicts of interest.  Traditional journals typically cover progress in different aspects of a chosen topic and provide a broad spectrum assessment of the topic. There are no formal guidelines for traditional exams. However, they have become increasingly comprehensive and systematic since the advent of systematic reviews. Examples of traditional criticism include narrative examination, narrative summary, critical examination, integrative examination and state-of-the-art examination (2). As with many research papers, the general format of a systematic review on a single topic includes introductory sections, methods, results, and discussion (Table 2). Readers should be aware of the quality of the evidence that supports all recommendations made in a clinical review.
Different systems for assessing levels of evidence have been introduced, but none have been used consistently. Siwek et al. use a rating A, B, C, where level A refers to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses; Level B refers to well-designed non-randomized clinical trials, such as clinical cohort studies and case-control trials with impartial selection of study participants; and Level C indicates expert consensus/opinion. Gulpinar and Guclu use a top-down hierarchical scoring system consisting of a systematic review, one randomized controlled trial, one non-randomized experimental trial, and case series. These authors also noted that an essential part of the review process is distinguishing good research from bad research and building on the results of the best studies. Journal writers should evaluate the quality of articles based on a strategy of their choice or design. Below are 8 important points to keep in mind as you start writing your review article. 1. Groves T. Basics of Good Medical Writing. bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/resources/Fundamentals_of_Good_Medical_Writing.ppt 2. Siwek J, Gourlay ML, Slawson DC, et al. How do I write an evidence-based clinical journal article? I am a family doctor.
2002 Jan 15;65(2):251-8. 3. Gülpınar Ö, Güçlü AG. How to write a review article? Turk J Urol. 2013 Sep;39(Suppl 1):44-8. 4. Pautasso M. Ten simple rules for writing a literature review. PLoS Comput Biol.
2013;9(7):e1003149. Define the scope of your review article and the research question you will answer, and make sure your paper brings something new to the field.